I tend to feel anti-choice is a bit odd as a phrase. I say anti-abortion, or sometimes, depending on context, anti-legal abortion (because it's not as if making it illegal stops it, it just stops it being legal and safe).

I don't actually like pro-choice either, but obviously pro-abortion is wrong. Very few people are really 'pro-abortion'. I think we'd probably all rather a woman didn't have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. If anyone can come up with a better phrase than pro-choice I'd like that too!

Um, I guess because I don't feel abortion is about choice per say in many cases. For many women it is about necessity - financial, emotional, physical. So I feel anti-choice implies being anti those who 'simply' choose that now is not the right time for a baby. Whereas the reality is that they are against something much wider. So I think it kind of glosses over the reality.

It's very difficult to find suitable terms. I have no problem with anti-choice as it makes the terms used about either side more symmetrical. Then again anti-abortion makes the situation crystal clear. Pro life is definitely highly ironic.

Grimma in the Galway case it's still an abortion. The foetus has a heartbeat. The doctors removed the foetus once its heartbeat is stopped. If the doctor helped removed the foetus when the woman started miscarrying, then they'd have helped killed a living being.

I understood where these people are coming from. But I'm pro-choice because honest I think women should have a say over our own bodies. Even in late term abortions, it's usually very very sad cases that end up there.

There isn't a simple one-size fits all label for either side, is there?

Yes, YouScream - In poor Savita's case, she was not 'choosing' an 'abortion'. It was a wanted baby, the whole medical situation of miscarriage was nothing to do with 'choice'. The insistence on waiting for the foetal heartbeat to (inevitably) cease was presumably in the first instance motivated by the doctor's fear of legal action but what underlay that seems to me nothing but religious dogma.

mayihave it's not a straight choice for some people with pro-life beliefs. If you see the foetus as a living being, than the doctors have the horrible choice of mother vs child. If you argue that the child is dying anyway, then may I ask what is your view on assisted suicide? Do you think it's right for a doctor to help a patient with a terminal illness to die? In the case of a 17wk foetus, he couldn't even make a choice for himself.

I say 'anti-abortionists' because that's what members of the pro-life movement are. They are against abortion in most cases and the more fundamental ones are against it in all cases.

When I was at university, an anti-abortionist I encountered told me, "if I'm an anti-abortionist, you're a pro-abortionist." I calmly pointed out no-one is pro-abortion, simply pro-choice. I told her no-one goes around with banners saying "abortion is great - go have one" and thus, no-one is pro-abortion.

NB: To explain briefly how I encountered this person. I fell pregnant at 19 (and was left in the lurch by the father), and when I returned from a year long break from university (to have my son), I was approached by the university's pro-life group. For some bizarre reason, they seemed to assume that as I had had my child, that must mean I was one of them.

My preference is "anti-abortion," because campaigners oppose access to abortion, usually in any circumstances.

I suppose anti-choice could refer to those campaigners who agree that abortion should be available in some cases (e.g. where life of woman is at risk, in case of incest, etc.) because they don't oppose abortion totally - just that they do not believe women themselves have any right to decide for themselves. It can only happen where there is a medical indication or where pregnancy resulted from a breach of the law (e.g. incest or rape.)

Pro-choice does what it says on the tin - believes that women not only should have access to terminations for health reasons, or as the result of rape or incest, but because they do not wish to continue a pregnancy.

I'm pro-choice because I think that the procedure of an abortion is sufficient that no-one who is mature and stable enough to have a child would deliberately get herself into the position of choosing to be pregnant. Do we by law limit fillings to only those who have tooth decay or assume that if someone is willing to go through with one they must be in a bad position.

The problem with permitting abortions only when the mother's life is in danger is that HCPs have to be prepared to stand up in a court and say that that woman would have died had an abortion not been carried out. This doesn't work because its very rare that maternal death is a certainty. Instead its a % risk, and is non-zero even for healthy uncomplicated pregnancies. So how likely does death have to be before an abortion can be performed, given the HCP risks ending up in jail should they judge the risk incorrectly?